Hard News: The Day After Tomorrow
149 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
What an election - from a personal perspective, it's the election of hope, on a knife edge. If we don't get change, liars win and everyone knows it;
So to me no matter how many folks vote National on the evening, every one of them is voting for post-truth politics;
And that's just plain so not-New Zealand.
We're better than that.
-
This is a disappointing cop out by semi-regulatory bodies BSA and ASA. Not surprising, but...
-
She hits the nail on the head for me, Dame Anne Salmond;
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/09/20/49103/dame-anne-salmond-a-final-brief-election-thought
-
Katharine Moody, in reply to
Not surprising, but…
Dunno. Common sense would suggest the 'bar' for a political party would be far higher than it might be for a laundry detergent.
Their decisions should be subjected to Judicial Review. They have set a dangerous precedent.
-
On a related note, the Taxpayers' Union had a full-page ad in yesterday's Herald. The promoter statement only had the promoter as the Taxpayers' Union. If I understand the rules correctly there must also be the name of a member of the organisation who is an authorised representative.
"If the promoter is an unregistered third party promoter, and is an incorporated or unincorporated body, the promoter statement must also include the name of a member of the body who is the duly authorised representative of the promoter."
-
So far as the three rule goes - it is a bit unjust in the ways pointed out by others already, but is it any more unjust than a comparable rule, like the UK's 15 year hard stop rule. Once you've been overseas for 15 years that's it (although I assume one could shift back to UK as a resident and reset the clock).
Most people I know in UK go back regularly (although appreciate that isn't the norm everywhere), every 1-3 years so most can vote if they want. Although I assume most probably don't anyway.
-
Sacha, in reply to
If the promoter is an unregistered third party promoter
Bet they are registered, given their reason for being.
-
Neil,
I think Labour were being less than honest over tax.
They have a very experienced front bench who have spent considerable time working on taxation.
The idea that they somehow don't know what tax changes they would make is a bit absurd.
Labour also continue to blame our problems on foreigners which is also dishonest and dishonest in the most obnoxious way.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11924976
Words fail me.
The self-immolator is supposedly connected with Family Court issues. In any case, it's sad that it's even happening.
Bill English may not be Donald Trump or Nigel Farage as some on Twitter compare him, but all the same he doesn't realise he's playing into the hands of the Brexiteers and Trumpniks in our midst. I'd compare him more to David Cameron or Hank Paulson - they made huge gambles on the status quo holding in place, only to lose the bet. Cameron with the Brexit vote, and Paulson with his setting up of the Wall St bailouts.
If English manages to lie his way back into office come Saturday, it could well be a poisoned chalice, as people run of patience waiting for their share of the "rock star economy", and NZF drums up the nativist elements. I'm reminded of The Sun's suspected role in swinging the UK 1992 elections. And it'd be nothing less than poetic justice for the nation's IGMFY types to lose the lot if/when the housing bubble bursts.
NZ's multiple property owners have basically become an unelected upper house, who threaten to go nuclear at anything remotely challenging their grip on the housing market. As Buckminster Fuller said once, "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." Here's hoping KiwiBuild and other schemes can be that new model, instead of a hard crash happening.
For me personally, whoever's in charge on Saturday will have a major bearing on my social mobility or lack of it. (More on this in my guest post.) Either way I'm still awaiting further instructions from Specialisterne.
-
Neil,
…but all the same he doesn’t realise he’s playing into the hands of the Brexiteers and Trumpniks
It seems to me English is more a continuation of the Clark govt – the TPP, working with Obama.
It’s not an isolationist stance. More Merkel. Like Ardern seems more Miliband than Corbyn.
-
More on so-called social mobility in this Twitter thread by Thomas Haig. It starts with a Paul Ryan-style remark on the matter, and neatly deconstructs it.
-
linger, in reply to
Continuing with TPPA after it was shafted (and then abandoned) by the US offers absolutely no possible net benefit to NZ.
The decision exemplifies National’s economic mismanagement (cf. also the dick move of hiding the studies that prove no benefit from their favorite roadworks. It has been a government of lies and appearances rather than actual positive achievements).
I am disappointed that Labour (which indeed did start the TPPA negotiations, back before the US changed the terms) did not subsequently distance itself from it. But I’m angry at National ramming it through regardless of the economic case. -
Zach Bagnall, in reply to
Most people I know in UK go back regularly (although appreciate that isn’t the norm everywhere), every 1-3 years so most can vote if they want.
Same - most of my friends in the UK go back every year or two, but then most of them are very high income IT types for whom it's not a burden. I'd much prefer the UK's 15 year policy, or at least some increase to the time window.
-
I was talking to a young DINKY couple last night, always voted Green. Last Xmas at the height of the market they brought a modest two bedroom place at the height of the market.
They both voted already, for National. As he said, "we want to protect our investment".
And I guess on their mortgage an extra $20 each in a tax cut would be welcome to. Meanwhile, children go hungry in hard working families and the mentally ill largely live on the streets.
I felt profoundly sad for my country.
-
william blake, in reply to
I felt profoundly sad for my country
when the tax cut is negated by a rise in gst and the property market deflates we can rejoyce?
Progressive taxation not regressive and a regulated housing market please to truly protect our investments from the ravages of Neo liberal government.
-
rejoyce!
There's a slogan National could have used...
;- ) -
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I was talking to a young DINKY couple last night, always voted Green. Last Xmas at the height of the market they brought a modest two bedroom place at the height of the market.
They both voted already, for National. As he said, "we want to protect our investment".
Back in 2014 when the Greens launched their policy of cheap loans for home solar there was a sudden influx of self-declared new Green voters lauding the initiative on Facebook. However once the discussion turned to extending the policy to public housing it became apparent just which rock these fair-weather Green converts had emerged from beneath.
Poor people, they declared - and there was a surprising number voicing this opinion - couldn't be trusted with proper tech. What they didn't manage to munt they'd strip and sell. This mindset seems to be at large again in the recent rash of opinion pieces scolding the Greens for taking an interest in social justice, instead of tidily restricting themselves to ineffectually making polite noises about the environment. All appear to be the work of those who'd never vote Green in a blue fit, unless they were bribed with a fat interest-free loan for property improvement.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I think it's been their problem all along: all about policy, hardly ever about people.
There's a part of me that responds to the desire to focus on ideas rather than personality.
BUT
First don't be a dick
And second, you are going to be met with surprises in government, situations will arise that you can't predict. So personality comes into play for the voter who needs to know how you are likely to respond.
TOP failed on both counts.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
We're better than that.
Are we? Really?
Lets be honest.
We let the Roast busters get away with rape.
We let the dairy farmers in Canterbury steal water and destroy rivers.
We let a housing bubble continue.
We let our poorest live in cold damp crowded homes.
We let children go to school unfed.
We let our health system fail our most needy.
We let Christchurch fester after the earthquakes.We can blame this National government all we like but we chose that government by either not voting or actually voting to allow these things.
We all made small choices that enabled this.
-
People always vote on emotion. People don’t say “I will vote for Labour because after a cost benefit analysis I think they’ll do best to improve social mobility” They say “I am OUTRAGED at child poverty!”
Case study from just this Wednesday evening on the Western Line:
I overheard some narrow minded woman on the train complaining to her friend that all the poor people from nearby state housing congregate under the eves of the Henderson library to access the free wifi. She railed against the freeloaders and beneficiaries in general (“nothing else to do all day but steal the internet”) and said she was thinking about ringing the library to let them know so they could at least turn it off at night. I really couldn’t grasp the mind-numbingly hideousness of her reasoning. The library has no data cap. It is a public, free wifi service. She had no idea what they were using it for. Why would she want them to not have access to a public wifi account? Because presumably if they were getting for free (by standing outside on a cold night night) what she had to pay for she was somehow missing out or being put upon? WTF is wrong with people who think like that?
I also gleaned she worked at a low paid role at a gym (when asked if she had voted Labour, her answer was a scornful “no, I’ve got a job!”). This woman would be far better off voting for Labour. Yet there she sat, voting National for bigoted reasons, an angry blue collar Tory. As I got off the train I said “I’d guarantee I earn four times your salary, and I voted Labour. National is for low paid idiots”. A cheap shot predicated on a hasty escape, but I was furious at having to listen to the stupid cow for ten minutes, and I felt better afterwards.
I guess as a Labour supporter, what I took away was how thoroughly indoctrinated she was, and if such people are even salvageable.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
People always vote on emotion. People don’t say “I will vote for Labour because after a cost benefit analysis I think they’ll do best to improve social mobility” They say “I am OUTRAGED at child poverty!”
Having been held back in life by ASD discrimination, I count myself among the solidly logical voters.
How old is this woman roughly, out of curiosity? Is she one of those "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" types? And often there's a coded racism underpinning loudmouthed poor-bashing.
-
“I’d guarantee I earn four times your salary, and I voted Labour. National is for low paid idiots”
Awesome. Did you burn a fiver for good measure, like Chelsea supporters used to do?
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
I think that if CGT had been packaged with say a $10k personal allowance (which would equal about $50 a week for most taxpayers) as tax fairness issue between landlords and workers, then it would have had no problems. It's the concept that it's just an extra tax that people (ignorantly in most cases) balked at.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
The system works on trust. And with MMP, the effect of any transgressions is limited. (FPP magnifies fraud by allowing bogus votes in key electorates to transform a result).
-
linger, in reply to
The system works on trust
Indeed it does, and that’s a good thing, and I would not change it.
I do not recommend that anyone vote while technically ineligible. (If their vote were subsequently challenged for any reason, that would have serious consequences.) I am not even suggesting that people actually do this in any significant numbers. (So this is not a “problem” that needs “fixing” — any fix would impose more barriers to legitimate voting and therefore would be worse.)
I merely note that it is a source of uncertainty when counting “eligible voters” and trying to account for non-voting: the presence of registered expats who don't vote because they are not currently eligible, but who don't deregister because they might be eligible next time, means that the stats look worse than they are.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.